More Idiocy, Indeed

Martin McPhillips, whom I often cite here, is a great and intelligent new (I can say that: I’ve been at it more than a year) blogger. He’s an awesome writer–far, far better than I.

But man: Schiavo, combined with Easter Sunday, combined with the Pope, and I just can’t take this religious integration anymore without comment.

So here he takes on evolution vs. intelligent design. Wow. Can he really believe this?

If you care to, take a moment to delve into those citations. I have. Without exception, every single one precedes from a single premise: God created the world. You see, to these "scientists," which is a contradiction in terms if you know anything about science, evolution can never be anything more than the bastard stepchild of their convolutions.

And don’t talk to me about "evolution is just a theory." Say that, and you’re just exposing your scientific ignorance. Relativity, which has been verified time and again, is "just a theory." Evolution is not an hypothesis. Neither is relativity.

Let me illustrate the absurdity, from just one of his citings:

But the "scientific outlook" they have in mind is one which, by definition, excludes God from any role in the world, from the Big Bang to the present. So this is fundamentally a religious position-a fundamentalist position, if you like–and it’s being taught in the schools as a fact when it isn’t even a good theory.

Get that. Science, by definition, excludes God. Moreover, to exclude God, on premise, implies taking a religious position. I’d have to think very, very hard, but I still don’t know if I could come up with any instance of having experienced such a breathtaking inversion of reason and scientific method in a mere two sentences.

Here’s the thing, if you care to think through this. Science has changed its position on a million things a million times. That’s what science does. It seeks the truth, whatever it may be. It continually seeks new knowledge, integration of that knowlege, and refinement of its understanding of nature. The fact that science has been compromised by the collectivist seeking of grant money is lamentable, but not fatal (so far).

Religion is another world. It stands on a premise: God. As such, it is wholly incompatible with the scientific method and no reconciliation is remotely possible–ever.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Kyle Bennett on April 25, 2005 at 21:03

    Wow, two false dichotomies in one day!

    "it is improbable (to the point of impossibility) that said complexity is the result of mere accident."

    The sad thing is, that is as close to reason as the ID-iots ever get: build a straw man out of whole cloth, and only then bring logic in, temporarily, for the coup de grace.

    Darwinian evolution does not posit accident, it posits a *mechanism*. Evolution is no more an accident than the square root of 4 equalling 2 is an accident – and it is no more design than the squre root of 4 equalling two is the latest standard from the W3 consortium.

    The fact that Darwinian evolution is so contentious *among scientists* shows the strength of science, not the weakness of the theory. It has been refined and refined again, and some superficial conclusions have been thrown out – but the core mechanism widely accepted today (even, and maybe especially, by Gould when he was alive) is the same one that Darwin discovered.

  2. Christopher Walker on April 26, 2005 at 01:10

    Any scientific theory is only as strong as the latest challenge it faces. If a challenge comes along that defeats the theory, the theory must be adapted or even abandoned. The same cannot be said of religion, since religion is not based on quantitative measurement and rigorous testing.

    On Darwinism, though, I thought the point of evolution is that it is greatly about successful accidents: genetic mutations are not planned but if they survive then they propagate.

  3. PaintingChef on April 26, 2005 at 08:49

    Found you through Blogexplosion. A friend of mine just had an interesting letter published in the newspaper today regarding this same topic. Here is what he had to say:

    Bible is not a science book
    Web posted Monday, April 25, 2005
    Letter to the Editor

    Regarding the argument of creation vs. evolution, which has graced the pages of The Chronicle many times before, I feel compelled to make a plea: Forget the dogma for five minutes and think about this with an open mind.

    I've been reading about school districts that require stickers on textbooks stating that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Then there was that science movie about volcanoes that theatres wouldn't show because it portrayed evolution in a positive light. What year is this, 340 A.D.? Is this really happening? The Bible is a great book, and it's full of valuable life lessons. However, it can't be used as a substitution for your child's science book. What kind of message are you giving your kids if you tell them they can't trust the books they read in school? Did dinosaurs not really exist? I don't remember reading about them in the Bible.

    People who support creationism (or the more science-like "intelligent design theory") are very good at attacking evolution, but have a hard time finding evidence that supports their cause other than "It's in the Bible." We need to remember that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by people who knew much less about the world than we do today. Then the book was translated and revised countless times. You can't take every sentence literally. Back in the 18th century, Christians believed that lightning was God's retribution for our sins. We've come a long way, haven't we?

    I'm a Christian, but I also went to college. The Bible is a collection of stories, not an almanac. Did God create the Earth? You bet. Did he do it in six days, then take a break? Maybe. I just don't know if we can
    trust the guy who was watching the clock.

    Jason Novotny, North Augusta, S.C.
    –From the Tuesday, April 26, 2005 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle

    Thought you might find that interesting. You can find the letter online at:

  4. weirsdo on April 26, 2005 at 06:12

    Thanks for the post. To the last commenter, it's important to distinguish between challenges based on the scientific method and challenges based on notions that have achieved social and political strength in other ways, for instance because they have been espoused by religious enthusiasts.
    I disagree about science being incompatible with God. I think science really can't say one way or the other whether God is behind or immanent in the universe. Nor can science fully address people's need to find meaning in life. The only thing that science has done, not just through Darwin, is discredit some people's ridiculously "literal" interpretations of the Bible. Apparently their faith is so weak they can't take it.

  5. Todd on April 26, 2005 at 07:09

    I have never heard the term "Law of Relativity." While I do believe it to be valid, it is technically still a theory. NASA currently has a probe orbiting Earth to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Just because something is not a 'law' does not mean it is not true. The same can be said for religious principles. We're merely talking about labels.

  6. Walter E. Wallis on April 26, 2005 at 22:07

    God created the world? So what?

  7. Richard Nikoley on April 27, 2005 at 07:26

    Since we have no verifiable, testable evidence for such a claim, it's an arbitrary claim. Arbitrary claims have no business in the business of science. Moreover, the evidence that we do have suggests natural events. If you want to talk _first_ causes, then the same objection applies to "God." Who created God, and so on, ad infinitum.

    The problem is believers who are also in the business of science tend to reject even solid evidence that tends to contradict their faith. One's gotta give, and it's normally not the religious beliefs.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k